Open editorialbot opened 3 months ago
Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@editorialbot commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdf
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (588.2 files/s, 389224.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV 8 0 0 18840
Python 7 505 1201 1055
Markdown 13 164 0 290
Jupyter Notebook 6 0 3796 252
TeX 1 14 0 227
TOML 1 4 0 30
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
YAML 2 3 7 27
make 1 4 5 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 40 702 5010 20758
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
79 LissyDenkers
32 Marc Galland
10 Lissy Denkers
1 Petra Bleeker
1 semantic-release
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 1232
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
🟡 License found: Other
(Check here for OSI approval)
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@petrableeker thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help with initial steps. I am currently reviewing if this work is in scope for JOSS. In particular given the relatively small size of the project I've just flagged this for scope review by our board, to see this conforms to our substantial scholarly effort criteria. This scope review should take about 2 weeks to complete.
@petrableeker I've just removed the query-scope
label as I'm pleased to confirm that this submission has passed the initial scope review process. We will now be looking for a handling editor.
@petrableeker currently all editors in this space are busy handling other submission. I've hence assigned the waitlisted label. This will help ensure you will be next once an editor becomes available.
@editorialbot invite @jromanowska as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@petrableeker The editor I've just invited is actually unavailable for the moment. So we will have to leave this waitlisted for the moment. Apologies for the delay and thanks for your patience. I will continue to look for an editor or, once @jromanowska becomes available she may pick this up. I'll keep you up to date.
@editorialbot assign @jromanowska as editor
Assigned! @jromanowska is now the editor
@petrableeker I've just assigned Julia as she agreed to be editor. However, due to the summer holiday period it may take a while for her to be able to pick this up.
Hi everyone! I'm just back from holidays and will go on with this submission now. Thank you for your patience.
@editorialbot check repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (589.5 files/s, 389841.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV 8 0 0 18840
Python 7 505 1201 1055
Markdown 13 165 0 292
Jupyter Notebook 6 0 3776 252
TeX 1 14 0 227
TOML 1 4 0 30
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
YAML 2 3 7 27
make 1 4 5 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 40 703 4990 20760
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
84 LissyDenkers
32 Marc Galland
10 Lissy Denkers
1 Petra Bleeker
1 semantic-release
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 1235
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
🟡 License found: Other
(Check here for OSI approval)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
Acanthophis: a comprehensive plant hologenomics pipeline
Submitting author: @kdm9
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @bricoletc, @gbouras13, @abhishektiwari
Similarity score: 0.7109
fseval: A Benchmarking Framework for Feature Selection and Feature Ranking Algorithms
Submitting author: @dunnkers
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @mcasl, @estefaniatalavera
Similarity score: 0.7079
patRoon 2.0: Improved non-target analysis workflows including automated transformation product screening
Submitting author: @rickhelmus
Handling editor: @KristinaRiemer (Retired)
Reviewers: @wesleyburr, @hechth
Similarity score: 0.7063
PCRedux: A Quantitative PCR Machine Learning Toolkit
Submitting author: @devSJR
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @jaybee84, @markziemann
Similarity score: 0.6844
OpenFEPOPS: A Python implementation of the FEPOPS molecular similarity technique
Submitting author: @stevenshave
Handling editor: @richardjgowers (Active)
Reviewers: @hannahbaumann, @exs-cbouy
Similarity score: 0.6824
⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
Hi, @petrableeker , I've just read the paper and have one comment: I find that the headers for "Summary" and "Statement of need" don't really match the content. I'd suggest headers like "Statement of need" and "Implementation" instead.
Also - do you have any suggestions for (or oppositions) reviewers? Above, our robot has suggested some names, so I'll probably choose some of them, but just wanted to know if you have any comments on this.
:wave: @msabrysarhan, @adamyhe, @coughls, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Hi @jromanowska. I'm unfortunately rather swamped at the moment. I don't think I'll be able to review.
Hi @jromanowska. I'm unfortunately rather swamped at the moment. I don't think I'll be able to review.
@adamyhe OK, thanks, maybe next time! Do you have anyone you could recommend to be a reviewer on this one?
@petrableeker, @LissyDenkers - do you have any reviewer suggestions? I'm a bit stuck here.
Hi @jromanowska, So far, we could not yet find anyone. One of the authors suggested that Pablo Lopez-Tarifa (lopeztarifa on GitHub) might be able to help us. In the meantime, I'll continue searching.
@lopeztarifa :wave: - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@petrableeker<!--end-author-handle-- (Petra Bleeker) Repository: https://github.com/BleekerLab/PhenoFeatureFinder Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@jromanowska<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @petrableeker. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@petrableeker if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type: